3 ms·
I agree - I write lisp for probably 50% of my time, and I have to juggle comparisons in my head every single time. For some reason it's much harder than arithme
by lemming 9y ago
I agree - I write lisp for probably 50% of my time, and I have to juggle comparisons in my head every single time. For some reason it's much harder than arithmetic functions.
- kgwgk 9y agoI find it quite natural: (< a b c) := a,b,c are ordered from smaller to larger And this allows for multiple comparisons, which is useful. Edit: < could be called increasingp
- kazinator 9y agoWhere even I sometimes experience a bit of a strain is when < is curried with a partial application operator. Example: (remove-if (op < 3) list) that removes items from list if they are greater than 3 because they are inserted as a second operand (< 3 item). But the syntax invites a misreading as "less than three". > Edit: < could be called increasingp How about: crescendo!
- fiddlerwoaroof 9y agoI like serapeum:op for this: (remove-if (op (< 3 _)) list).
- kazinator 9y agoI don't know of any op macro that doesn't have a way to insert the free argument(s) explicitly. I don't like using it in this case because that amounts to admitting there is some kind of problem. I'd rather fix the cognitive root cause in the brain.